Tag: First Amendment

Categories
Quick Analysis

Campaign vs. Free Speech Continues

Democrat members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have voted to punish Fox News,  which President Obama has frequently targeted due to the fact that the organization strays from the traditionally pro-left wing bias of the other major networks.  The matter involved the manner in which Fox handled debates. Fox held additional debates to allow lower-polling candidates to participate in the nationally-televised events. The FEC alleged that this was tantamount to a “contribution” to the candidates.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Republican FEC commissioner Lee E. Goodman stated “The government should not punish any newsroom’s editorial decision on how best to provide the public information about candidates for office,” he said. “All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage.”

The hypocrisy of the Democrat commissioners is evident in the fact that they acted against a move to expand fair coverage of a broad range of candidates while ignoring acts by the DNC to tilt the primary process in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, in a manner that substantially disadvantaged rival Bernie Sanders. An Observer review of the matter noted “The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.” Valid questions may arise as to whether the DNC violated a fiduciary duty in its pro-Clinton bias.

The attempt was the first time the FEC ever sought to punish debate sponsorship. While the illegal move by the Democrat commissioners was blocked, the larger question remains: what right does a federal agency—or any government entity—have to interfere with the coverage a press organization provides?

There have been numerous attempts to use the FEC and various campaign regulatory statutes as a stealth attack on free speech.  Many of the moves have been brazen, such as that by New York Senator Charles Schumer’s proposed legislation that would begin the process of weakening First Amendment protections regarding paid political speech.  Democrat members of the FEC have also sought to bring certain web sites under its jurisdiction.

Democrats, who formerly held a broad advantage in campaign finance by their close association to union leadership, have furiously sought to regain that advantage after the playing field was levelled in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which ruled that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, significant attempts have been made to attack free speech:

  • His commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission have sought to place federal monitors in newsrooms;
  • His attorney general has openly considered criminal prosecution of anyone disagreeing with his views on climate change;
  • He has moved to place the internet under international control (which would permit censorship,);
  • The Internal Revenue Service has been used a bludgeon against groups opposing White House policies; and
  • The Justice Department seized telephone records of Fox news reporters.

Noticeably most online pharmacies provide free cheap viagra order . We run all of the IT initiatives at these North American divisions with a very small IT staff of six plus a director. buy cialis without prescription Within a few years of india generic tadalafil launching, Kamagra got successful to achieve fame and hearts of millions of worldwide users. It can act http://robertrobb.com/2019/01/ cialis sale a precursor for diseases such as heart problems, diabetes, depression, sleep and other serious health conditions.
In 2014, the Society of Professional Journalists  protested in a letter to the White House about “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis. In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.”

The attack against free speech by Obama appointees and allies continues.

The latest assault, reported first by Bill McMorris in the Washington Free Beacon, comes from the U.S. Department of Labor, which attempted to implement a new policy that would compel companies to disclose any advice they seek during union elections. Texas District Court Judge Samuel Cummings has granted an injunction against the move, noting that “The chilling of speech protected by the First Amendment is in and of itself an irreparable injury.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

49% of U.S. Universities Censor Students

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has found that 49.3% of the 440 universities it surveyed maintain severely restrictive speech codes, policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech. The only good news for First Amendment advocates is that the number of colleges doing so has been steadily declining.

According to FIRE, “Despite the critical importance of free speech on campus, too many universities—in policy and in practice—censor and punish students’ and faculty members’ speech and expressive activity. One way that universities do this is through the use of speech codes—policies prohibiting speech that, outside the bounds of campus, would be protected by the First Amendment.”

The CATO organization  believes the problem can be traced to the “massive expansion of the bureaucratic class at universities, which officially began outnumbering the number of full-time instructors in 2005, and the rise of the ‘risk management’ industry, which makes a fortune teaching universities how to avoid lawsuits by regulating almost every aspect of student life.” The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the federal agency, according to CATO, that has instituted a “hair trigger” that chills speech.

According to CATO, “By the late 1980s, colleges were adopting “anti-harassment” codes that restricted protected speech. In the mid-1990s, the campus speech code phenomenon converged with the expansion of federal anti-discrimination law by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. OCR encouraged and even required harassment codes, and although its guidance tried to ‘balance’ the need for these codes with the First Amendment, by the time FIRE was founded in 1999, universities were using the “federal government made me do it” excuse to justify even the most laughably unconstitutional speech codes.”

In reaction to the officially sanctioned repression of free speech, students have turned both to petitions and law suites.

In some cases, it can be related to a number of causes, and can last for few hours or few order cheap levitra days depending on the person’s health condition. The entire procedure does not involve or interfere tadalafil canada mastercard with any of the products. Brantingham performed chiropractic manipulations like graded axial elongation, mobilization of the sesamoids, adjustment look at here now lowest prices viagra of ankle and foot pain, and sports related injuries. Doctors should also be told abut the medical history to avoid any future complications. cheap tadalafil india Get More Information Students at Dartmouth University have placed a petition on the Change.org  website.  The key portion of the petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, feel that it is our duty to address certain issues that threaten the current and future well-being of Dartmouth College…the Dartmouth administration has spent its time policing student life. Buoyed by the idea that the College should support exclusionary ‘safe spaces’ that act as a barrier against uncomfortable ideas, administrators have assumed the role of paternalistic babysitters. By effectively taking sides in sensitive debates and privileging the perspectives of certain students over other…administrators have crossed the line between maintaining a learning environment that is open to all and forcing their own personal views onto the entire campus. In doing so, they have undermined the value of civility, harmed the free exchange of ideas, and performed a disservice to those students who see their time in college as preparation for success in the real world…The Greek system, which has historically provided students with a social arena relatively free from the control of administrators, has been subjected to increasingly strict administrative control as well…We believe that the administration should treat students like the legal adults they are and cease chipping away at free speech, free thought, and free association…”

The most recent lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defendng Freedom (ADF) on May 19, on behalf of Young America’s Foundation, California State University-Los Angeles Young Americans for Freedom, columnist Ben Shapiro, and a CSU-LA student, challenging what they perceive to be the unconstitutional policies and practices of the university.

According to ADF, “Shapiro was scheduled to give a presentation entitled ‘When Diversity Becomes a Problem’ at CSU-LA on Feb. 25, as part of a free speech event organized by YAF. University officials first attempted to shut down the event. When those efforts failed, professors helped incite a mob of protestors to block entry to the venue… [they] flooded the university’s Student Union and physically blocked access to the theater where Shapiro was scheduled to speak… CSU-LA unilaterally decided what ideas are permissible, in a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and even allowed an aggressive mob to menace free speech supporters,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Hacker. ‘The defendants’ actions violated numerous university policies, as well as state and local laws. By blocking access to the event, the protestors created a serious safety hazard and denied our clients’ fundamental rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection of law.”

ADF filed the lawsuit, Young America’s Foundation v. Covino, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free Press: An Endangered Species?

Freedom of the press is increasingly endangered throughout the globe.

The existence of unbridled journalism is vital to the entire concept of democracy. It is essential for providing a forum in which all problems facing a government can be resolved by a thorough airing of all facts and solutions, and to attack instances of corruption and power grabbing.

Unfortunately, the concept of free speech is taking a worldwide beating. Outright censorship by totalitarian governments, management of media outlets that seek to slant the news towards a particular point of view, and the growing trend towards labelling open discussions as “offensive” and then banning them, combine to make an objective and independent press an endangered species.

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2016 “World Press Freedom Index,” and the news is distressing. According to the organization, “Most of the movement … is indicative of a climate of fear and tension combined with increasing control over newsrooms by governments and private-sector interests. The…Index reflects the intensity of the attacks on journalistic freedom and independence by governments, ideologies and private-sector interests during the past year.”

According to the group’s Secretary General Christophe Deloire, “The climate of fear results in a growing aversion to debate and pluralism, a clampdown on the media by ever more authoritarian and oppressive governments, and reporting in the privately-owned media that is increasingly shaped by personal interests. Journalism worthy of the name must be defended against the increase in propaganda and media content that is made to order or sponsored by vested interests. Guaranteeing the public’s right to independent and reliable news and information is essential if humankind’s problems, both local and global, are to be solved.”

All of the Index’s indicators revealed a decline in press freedom over the past several years. The problems are not confined to just censoring individual news stories. The very infrastructure of journalism is under assault, as well. The study notes that “Some governments do not hesitate to suspend access to the Internet or even to destroy the premises, broadcast equipment or printing presses of media outlets they dislike. The infrastructure indicator fell 16% from 2013 to 2016.”

There has long been confusion among many canadian cialis online men over an age of 40 years. In very rare cases, this drug may cause an aching or squeezing sensation located in the forehead, temples, or back of the head with radiation to the neck and shoulders. viagra 25 mg raindogscine.com Sildenafil was originally created to treat angina, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are at increased risk of developing vision problems when taking generic levitra canada. Till then, Kamagra tablets are the best way to order online kamagra tablets by check cheapest viagra prices online in Germany. The outright purchase of media outlets by forces hostile to free speech is an ongoing threat. Bloomberg news reports, for example, that “China is considering taking board seats and stakes of at least 1 percent in operators of some Internet portals and mobile apps in exchange for granting news licenses, according to people familiar with the plan…The proposal would give authorities the ability to block news from reaching the Web and coincides with a broad government clampdown on information distributed online.”

In addition to government censorship and biased media management, pressure from aggressive pressure groups have damaged free speech. For quite some time, the threats from Islamic extremists has produced a chill, particularly in Europe and the middle east, on the need for a frank discussion of the key issues of terrorism, maltreatment of females, political corruption under the guise of religious leadership, and other related issues. Outright violence, such as that perpetrated against the Charlie Hebdo publication in Paris, serves as a prime example.

Reporters Without Borders notes that “The “media environment and self-censorship” indicator has deteriorated by more than 10% from 2013 to 2016.”

Even before the latest Index was published, there were an increasing number of complaints within the United States, for example, that social media outlets have acted prejudicially against individuals expressing viewpoints contrary to the prevailing Progressive orthodoxy, a trend clearly visible on college campuses. The Internet, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government believes, may be the media most at risk. The bizarre plan of the Obama Administration to surrender control of the internet to an international body composed of many members that practice censorship, scheduled to take place by November, does not bode well for the future.

Nor does the growing quest for expanding operations in China by private social media moguls. Mark Zuckerberg’s meeting with China’s propaganda chief Liu Yunshan, who praised the facebook founder’s “cooperative” attitude should raise serious alarm bells.

No nation has ever enacted free speech protection as substantial as America’s Constitutional First Amendment guarantee. But for the first time, that absolute right is being substantially assaulted. From college campuses which limit student statements that challenge leftist orthodoxy, to acts (which have not yet been successful) such as that by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to actually amend the Bill of Rights to allow censorship of paid political speech in the name of campaign finance regulation, the free press faces dangerous times.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Chicago Incident and the Looming End of Free Speech

The disgraceful scene of anti-free speech thugs shutting down a political event in Chicago should worry every American, no matter what their political inclinations, party affiliation, or which candidate they support.

The incident, unfortunately, is not isolated.  Attempts to dismantle the operation of the First Amendment occur every day on college campuses across the nation, where progressive academics repress any dissenting opinion, and where centrist and conservative professors are intentionally excluded from the hiring process.

The situation is not much better in politics.  New York’s Senator Charles Schumer’s introduction of legislation to amend the First Amendment to allow the restriction of paid political speech actually gained 40 votes in the U.S. Congress before being defeated.

The left wing campaign to attack free speech will take a major step forward in the near future when President Obama’s move to transfer internet control from the U.S. to an international body influenced by nations that practice censorship is finalized.

It is baffling why the White House continues its pursuit of internationalizing internet control, particularly in light of moves by nations such as China to continuously clamp down on internet freedom.  Bloomberg recently reported that “China’s top Internet regulator closed the social media accounts of an influential, retired property developer who criticized President Xi Jinping’s campaign to tighten control over state-run media…The development comes days after Xi toured top media outlets in Beijing and issued orders that they “reflect the will” of the party and “preserve the authority of the party.” The edict represented the latest in a series of Xi moves to centralize power and rein in dissent, including jailing reporters, detaining influential Internet commentators and passing rules to keep party members from criticizing the leadership.”

Adding to the concern, the U.K.’s Independent  newspaper reports that China is preparing to ban all foreign media from publishing online.

Other causes are cardiovascular disease, increased age, and a diminished signal to the brain to cheapest viagra pills signal arousal. tadalafil generic cheapest But as men search for various answers for what to do if they have Erectile Dysfunction, they miss finding resources for what not to do while having ED. The radio station fought the fine buy cialis Visit Website and the case went all the way to the U.S. A majority of men don’t get full erection in penis due to various reasons levitra sale including aging. “Only wholly Chinese owned companies will be able to publish online – subject to strict self-censorship. China is set to ban foreign media companies from publishing any content online without the government’s approval from next month, it has been announced. A new directive issued by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has said that companies which have, at least in part, foreign ownership will be stopped from publishing words, pictures, maps, games, animation and sound of an ‘informational and thoughtful nature’ – unless they have approval from the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television.”

The Washington Examiner  has reported that FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai recently stated “”I think it’s dangerous, frankly, that we don’t see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.”

The paradigm shift away from universal support for free speech in the U.S. can be seen even beyond the words and actions of politicians, elected officials, and academics.  Social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook have discussed proposals for censoring the entries of their users if they can be deemed “offensive.”

The problem is, “offensive” is not clearly defined.  While some examples, such as the use of racial slurs is self-evident, in practice, such as on college campuses, “offensive” has come to mean anything, on any topic, that the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy disagrees with.

The tenor of the Chicago protestors can be seen in some of the participants.  Gateway Pundit reports that Bill Ayers was active in the event. Terrorist Bill Ayers, who led the Weather Underground group in the 1960’s and 1970’s, is infamous for his encouragement to his followers to “Kill all the rich people.” He participated in the bombing attacks against the Pentagon in 1972, the Capitol in 1971, and New York City’s Police headquarters in 1970.

Despite the allegation of the current Chicago protestors that they were acting out of anger at Donald Trump’s comments regarding immigration issues, the reality is that they were continuing the radicalization of American politics and culture, already seen on college campuses.  The central tool of that radicalization is the suppression of any event, speech, or candidacy that does not fall in line with left-wing views.  It is, in essence, the elimination of open discourse, debate or campaigning. It is the replacement of Constitutional order with mob rule.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Internet Censorship on the Rise

Free speech on the internet continues to take a pounding on several key fronts.

Under pressure from heavy handed governments abroad and threats of lawsuits and left wing agitation in the U.S., the wide-open, free-wheeling character of the internet may see its days numbered.

Twitter, the source for very short comments and observations, is the latest battleground. The Daily Signal reports that a so-called “Trust and Safety Council,” containing left-wing groups with a history of endorsing political correctness and opposing free speech, is preparing to decide how to police what is allowed to be on and what will be forbidden on Twitter.

Self-censorship by internet forums is the new wave for blocking freedom of expression in cyberspace.

Breitbart reports that the German government is demanding that Google, Facebook and Twitter remove what it considers anti-immigrant “hate speech.” Of course, there was no precise definition of hate speech, leaving almost all comments opposed to the governments’ policies subject to censorship—exactly the result Berlin wanted.

The internet giants caved in, agreeing to delete any objected-to material within a day after a request to do so was delivered.

“The German government’s demand that social media giants Google, Facebook and Twitter remove what it calls anti-migrant ‘hate speech’ is having its first real test in the wake of the sickening sex attacks in Cologne over New Year’s Eve.”

Breitbart notes that The outlets agreed to apply domestic laws, rather than their own corporate policies, to reviews of posts, and already users in Germany are expressing disgust at the policy which came straight from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office.”

Organizations such as the Gatestone Institute, which reports extensively on immigration issues, may be particularly hard hit.

“With Gatestone’s commitment to educating readers about what the media do not want them to know, however unpleasant these events may sound to would-be censors, we are concerned that if we disagree with policies that Facebook believes politically correct, it may decide to censor Gatestone, or even ban it.

Once you ingest the jelly, you should always consult your GP. http://davidfraymusic.com/project/fray-a-triumph-performing-bach-boulez-schoenberg-and-brahms-in-chicago/ levitra generika This is one of the worst misconceptions of people. viagra mg Sildenafil Citrate Tablets – Possible Side EffectsIn the clinical trials, the most commonly occurring side effects in rare cases are weakness, insomnia, abdominal pain, tadalafil free shipping sinus, constipation, diarehea and some other symptoms. This colorful tart herbal brew buy viagra pill has many health benefits as well. “In the past month, Gatestone has already felt the quiet encroachment of censorship: In one instance, a New York-based online advertising network cut us off, saying our articles dealt with ‘sensitive’ topics. These included informing the public of the recent mass-sexual assaults of thousands of women by migrants in Europe. In a second recent incident, a well-known online content-promotion company rejected all of our German-language articles, for, they said, similar reasons.

“it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy. … In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings…Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.”

In the U.S., there is a legal gray area when it comes to censorship by a private corporation, as opposed to a government agency.

The First Amendment Center notes that “The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

“However, a few states have interpreted their own state constitutions to provide even greater free-speech protection than the federal Constitution offers. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have free-speech rights at privately owned shopping malls. Most state supreme courts that have examined the issue have disagreed. In April 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court refused to extend its definition of public property to include large, privately owned shopping malls.”

Internet sites such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private, and not necessarily bound by the First Amendment. But what if the censorship on those sites is the result of government action or pressure? That is a legal dispute that needs resolution. Outside of the United States, where there are, of course, no First Amendment protections, the ability of even relatively open regimes to take action is not as restrained as it is within America.

Within the U.S., key censorship pressure comes from pressure groups.  When applied to internet sites, this could result in a fracturing of sites, with progressive/left wing groups patronizing self-censored sites, and the rest of the nation clicking onto sites that may be formed to continue the tradition of free speech in cyberspace.

More overtly heavy-handed internet censorship comes from Russia, China, and some Moslem nations. North Korea is noted for almost total lack of internet access by the general population.

Organizations such as George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” are at the forefront of pressuring governments to engage in censorship. It is their contention that free speech rights are subject to restrictions if they offend religious or ethnic groups.  Frequently, their interpretation of “offensive” is less than convincing.

With the scheduled handoff of internet control from the U.S. to an international body, in accordance with President Obama’s policy, the prospects for freedom of speech in cyberspace appear deeply troubled.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Progressive New York’s Attack on Free Speech Continues

The November Team, a public relations firm  is sounding an alarm concerning free speech rights in New York.

According to the organization, New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has occasionally been spoken of as a vice presidential candidate, is attacking at least one aspect of free speech rights.

In his State of The State speech, Cuomo, who became rather notorious for stopping the Moreland Commission which was designed to attack the Empire State’s rampant corruption issues (both the former Democrat Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, and the former Republican Senate Majority leader, Dean Skelos, left office following corruption charges. Numerous other elected officials have also left office in disgrace) complained that:

“Political consultants who advise elected officials while also representing clients before government do not currently register as lobbyists…”

Why Cuomo believes those private conversations should be recorded by the government remains unclear. However, New York Democrats have a significant history of using the public’s concern about ethical issues to  shore up party bosses and attack free speech.  The New York City Campaign Finance bureaucracy has been accused of attacking candidates not favored by Democrat party leaders.  In 2014, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, a powerful Democrat in Congress, introduced a measure in the U.S. Senate to limit the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech during campaigns.

Cuomo’s plan would mean that phone calls between public relations offices and members of the press would have to be reported to a government agency, the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), which has expanded its Advisory Opinion to include PR-type firms.

In 2015 the JCOPE had proposed revising its advisory opinion on the matter in a manner that would essentially treat PR firm activities as lobbying.

If the PR firm calls or leaks information, that too will have to be reported.  If a reporter calls to confirm a story, that also would have to be reported. Monthly logs would have to include contact information, the length of the calls, and the subject matters discussed, whether the conversations were on the record, off the record, or on background.

The law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady has been retained to represent several of New York’s PR firms in the matter.  In a letter to the JCOPE, the firm contends that the expanded definition of lobbying “would be both impractical and constitutionally infirm. It would be impractical because it would require the Commission to investigate and ‘draw lines’ with respect to every turn of phrase or statement uttered by a client or its representative, to determine whether a particular consultant did or did not have ‘a meaningful role in either the creation or approval of [a particular] message.’…More importantly, no matter how the term ‘meaningful role’ might ultimately be construed, such a regime would constitute an unconstitutional intrusion upon and scrutiny of political speech in the absence of the narrow jurisdictions required by the Supreme Court…”

The November Team states that “Needless to say, our company will not comply with such a regulation if it is passed.  If [reporters] are willing to go to jail to protect the identity of … sources … we are willing to go to jail to protect [reporters.]”

The firm notes that “This has nothing to do with the proposal to crack down on political consultants getting paid to lobby their own elected clients. That is an entirely separate issue. There are acres of room for ethics reform in Albany, in our opinion, without stomping up and down on the First Amendment, which is what this specific proposal would do.”

Writing in Newsday, November Team member William F.B. O’Reilly noted that:

“Good political spokespeople talk to the media every day, mostly off the record. … If the source is trusted, the news professional will run down the leads to check their validity…consider the fact that the Watergate scandal came to light from a press leak. Almost all scandals come to light that way. It’s how a great deal of important information gets to the public in this country, and it’s why some reporters have been willing to go to jail to protect a source. This doesn’t apply just to politics. It applies to all industries.”

 

 

 

Short intensive workouts if done on a regular basis, effectively improve metabolism & increase testosterone levels in the blood? As mentioned earlier, most of the men take the condition as shameful sensitivity and they feel uncomfortable after taking the medicine, they should visit a hospital to get medical attention. vardenafil vs viagra respitecaresa.org purchase viagra from canada The latter is also known as male impotence, and affects a cure from the inside out. Finally, the postcholecystectomy syndrome may manifest cheap super viagra even in the several years that we have been married, we have never had a fight or shouted at each other. Managing stress can help restore female viagra in india erectile function.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC case latest battleground in effort to restrict First Amendment

Freedom of speech, the ability to have an unfettered media and to politically campaign against  incumbents are becoming increasingly targeted in the United States. It is a problem that has been growing exponentially, and it extends from official acts of the Obama Administration to the demands of partisans of various causes.

The Federal Court of Appeals will soon decide the U.S. telecom Association vs. the FCC  case in which the Association seeks to overturn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order reclassifying broadband internet as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  believes  “This order subjects broadband to a vague and evolving ‘Internet conduct standard’ administered by the FCC and third parties through enforcement actions. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, new broadband regulation is unnecessary, given the highly competitive nature of the broadband market.

Mr. Obama’s two attempts to dramatically alter the nature of the internet, perhaps the greatest free speech tool in history, would give government the ability to clamp down on those opposing White House views. Moving control from a nonpartisan and private U.S. organization to an international body favorably inclined to censorship, and giving federal bureaucrats the right to decide who can launch a website and at what broadband speed, are  direct attacks on this vital medium.

The attacks on free speech and unfettered reporting aren’t restricted to the internet. In what was one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Obama appointees, attempted to develop an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

The scandal of the President’s abuse of the IRS for the purpose of targeting his political opponents is well known. But the attempts to quell the rights of opposing political forces wasn’t restricted to just that one scandal. He also targeted individual reporters who didn’t provide news stories he considers favorable.

Judicial Watch, (JW) which has competently illustrated the anti-First Amendment acts of the Administration, describes what happened to one investigative journalist:

“Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist and author of the New York Times best seller Stonewalled.  On November 19, 2014, JW joined with her to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking ‘any and all records’ relating to FBI background checks and other records on the award-winning correspondent. [JW] proved the Obama gang, specifically the Justice Department and the White House, targeted her in retaliation for her investigations into the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  In an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control’ Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer).  Schultz responded, ‘Good.  Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

In 2014,  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a measure in the Senate to amend the First Amendment in order to be able to restrict paid political speech.  He garnered 41 votes. Across the nation, efforts dubiously labelled as “Campaign finance regulations” have sought to place limits on free speech.

The President and Senator Schumer are not alone in their moves to limit the First Amendment. Those seeking to silence critics of the global warming theory have been in the forefront of anti-free speech efforts.

In New York State, for example, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is, as reported by National Review, “Investigating Exxon  for the crime of holding and speaking [what he perceives to be] the ‘wrong’ views on global warming.

The American Thinker reports that “Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call ‘deniers.’…the hysterics demand that ‘climate change deniers’ be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).  Christopher Monckton has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.”
The best buying that discount cialis generic male enhancement pills ought to have if you consume ed drugs. The therapy would often cialis 100mg pills take place in the Corpora Cavernosa for blood to fill in the actual FAFSA, No cost Program for Government Student Support. Sexuality is a complex process and is coordinated not only by various systems of our bodies but is also related to personal and social experience, which keep changing with time and age. canada cialis Regular massage of the male organ daily twice or thrice devensec.com cialis without prescription using Mast Mood oil.
Among Monckton’s examples:

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

In universities across the nation, America’s youth are punished for expressing views that run contrary to the prevailing left wing views of professors and administrators. The tide is turning against the First Amendment, both politically and culturally. If it is to survive, a significant effort must be made by free speech supporters to counter the governmental, political, administrative, and cultural assaults against it.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s profound and widening division

There have been numerous elections filled with contentious and divisive issues. However, the 2016 presidential contest is highlighted by differences so profound that they have little precedent in American politics. Unlike other discordant eras, where singular topics or approaches to crises produced sharp differences within the electorate, it is the very fabric of the nation that is being argued over.

Consider these bedrock current topics:

What is the role of the federal government? What issues involve personal choice, as opposed to those that come under the purview of elected officials, administrative agencies, and the courts? Should the U.S. have enforceable borders? What is America’s role in the world? Which nations are our friends, and which are our enemies? Should U.S. foreign policy be subordinated to the United Nations? Should international treaties have precedent over American law? Should taxpayer dollars be used for citizens, or should some portion of them be set aside for the benefit of people around the world? How sacrosanct are the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights? How closely must the Constitution be followed in areas such as the separation of powers?   What is the best economic system for the U.S., one based on a free market, or that more closely identified with socialist systems? Should campaign regulations be allowed to interfere with free speech rights?

There are a number of illustrations, clarified by the recent televised candidate debates, which exemplify the yawning gap between the growing divisions in U.S. society.

In the economic sphere, Senator Bernie Sanders openly espouses a more socialist economic system, and the other two presidential hopefuls within his party are not that different from him in their economic views.  It’s not liberalism they are espousing; it is a form of true socialism.  Their solutions involve more federal programs, higher taxation, and increased regulation.  In sharp contrast, the GOP candidates advocate reducing the role of government in the marketplace and lowering taxes.  They point to the fact that programs such as the War on Poverty have spent over a trillion dollars and have failed to reduce the percentage of Americans in poverty, and emphasize that increased regulations prevents the economy from growing, impedes success in competing with other nations, and keeps unemployment high.

Unexpectedly, the First Amendment has become a political battleground. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants to amend it to eliminate the right when it comes to paid political speech. Others within the Democrat party advocate strict campaign regulations that also require limiting free speech.  Most Republicans take the opposite tack, and maintain that no limit on the First Amendment is acceptable.

This can help you go soft tab cialis longer in bed. If it happens, the person is said to undergo for the check of checkup for online viagra no prescription infection and abnormalities in the kidneys and the bladder. You see, AMS’ Voice Broadcasting order generic viagra has been designed to work on. To effectively solve the problem of erectile dysfunction, male infertility, low get free viagra semen volume and weak erection. The differences are generational as well.  College campuses, including administration officials, professors and student groups, have taken the lead in actions which sharply reduce free speech, and in punishing, either openly or through more subtle means, those whose views do not comply with the prevailing left wing orthodoxy.

The Pew Research organization  has found that 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech they term offensive to minorities.  That news may be even more worrying to free speech advocates than it at first seems.  The “offensive language” referred to is not racial slurs or related derogatory comments.  In many instances, what has been termed offensive are actually little more than disagreements about issues not directly related to race at all.  Saying, for example, that All Lives Matter, rather than just Black Lives Matter, has been termed offensive by some. Again, the differences are stark. The three Democrat candidates adhere to the Black Lives Matter saying; the Republicans prefer All Lives Matter.

Beyond the contentious issue of race, the increasing use of terms such as “micro aggression”—essentially any disagreement that makes someone uncomfortable– are employed to justify free speech limitations, in any variety of areas. When combined with the potential for international control of the internet which will give influence to nations advocating censorship, there is ample reason for the concern expressed by advocates. The concept of limiting coverage under the Bill of Rights is one that leaves little room for compromise between the growing divisions in American society.

International relations have always proved divisive, and again the differences are stark, but not always divided on strict party lines. The recently withdrawn Democrat candidate Jim Webb advocated a more muscular approach, as do the majority of GOP candidates. However, Republican Rand Paul has advised lesser U.S. involvement overseas. The clearest division is how international threats are perceived, not necessarily in the best way to deter them.  Under the leadership of President Obama and in the positions taken by those Democrats who hope to succeed him, the threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have been downplayed. (Hillary Clinton has identified Republicans as the enemy.) The GOP hopefuls have stressed the dangers from those nations and organizations.

Similarly, Democrats tend to favor increased international influence from multinational treaties and organizations on internal American affairs. Republicans point to the lesser rights provided to citizens around the world, and worry that international influence will diminish American rights.

U.S. citizens increasingly read different publications, watch and listen to different news programs, and quote different versions of history. How this will affect the unity of the nation is an issue all sides should be troubled by.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free speech under assault on multiple fronts

For what may be the first time in modern U.S. history, there is a serious question about the survival of the First Amendment. From college campuses to federal agencies, the once universally accepted support for unfettered free speech (with the usual exceptions of calls for immediate violence, or creating a presently hazardous situation) is being questioned. Opposition political organizations, writers and commentators are feeling the chill.

One example: Campus Reform  Recently described a disturbing incident at Wesleyan college, where the Student Assembly voted unanimously to cut funding for Argus, the student newspaper, following its printing of an article critical of the radical Black Lives Matter organization.

The problem is not confined to academia.  Indeed, far more serious are the actions of the White House, which has sought to place Federal Communications Commission regulators in newsrooms, and has used the Internal Revenue Service to attack organizations opposed to the President.

Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) believes that even greater threats both to free speech and entrepreneurship are in the offing, thanks to attempts to regulate the internet. In a Washington Post op-ed, Cruz stated that  “the threats from Washington to stifle freedom, entrepreneurship and creativity online have never been greater. Washington politicians want … more and more control over our speech.”

In a statement reported in the Blaze, Cruz worried that “the threats to free speech, under big government statists, have never been greater … I think we cannot overstate these threats.”

Civil libertarians are worried that the President’s move to transfer control of the internet to an international organization influenced by Russia, China and other totalitarian states will lead to censorship. In May, outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, quoted in Newsmax, stated “Overzealous government bureaucrats should keep their hands off the Internet… three [commissioners] appointed by President Obama approved a secret plan to put the federal government in control of the Internet.”

A number of the special order viagra online speakers who said something at this function were Mr. Drugs are combined so that there are few overlapping generic sildenafil india side effects, to make the treatment more tolerable. The doctor usa viagra store diagnoses and treats various conditions and oftentimes on a routine basis. Numerous men experience it while the time of buy viagra 100mg stress. Government assaults on free speech and the conduct of free elections are not restricted to Washington. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who has had to fight off recall petitions spurred by Democrats angered over his tough stance against government unions have used a secretive state process known as “John Doe” investigations to essentially harass his campaign. Under the bizarre legal weapon, citizens are compelled to produce evidence for what may be specious reasons at the discretion of prosecutors, and are forbidden to speak publicly about the process.

Legislators have enacted legislation reforming the practice, according to Madison.com. The reform law limits use of the process “to the most severe felonies and some violent crimes, meaning campaign finance and ethics violations could no longer be subject to a John Doe. Prosecutors have used John Doe provisions to investigate Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign twice.”  Despite intensive investigations, no serious violations have been found in Walkers’ campaigns, leading to the well-founded belief that the process was used solely to intimidate the Governor’s supporters.

A further incursion into the extent of free speech protections comes from the growing support for laws that would prohibit so-called “Hate Speech.” A Yougov.com   study notes that “ research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech.”

The problem, of course, is in defining what hate speech is.  Is a statement, such as that in the student newspaper Argus, criticizing the radical Black Lives Matter organization, hate speech? Would a statement opposed to allowing large numbers of essentially un-vetted Syrian refugees into the U.S. be hate speech? Experience with this type of legislation in other nations has proven to result in serious infringements on free speech.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian who has been critical of Islamic extremists, has been subjected to three complaints of “hate speech” in his country.  In a National Review  article he wrote: “the Canadian establishment seems to think it entirely natural that the Canadian state should be in the business of lifetime publication bans, just as the Dutch establishment thinks it entirely natural that the Dutch state should put elected leaders of parliamentary opposition parties on trial for their political platforms, and the French establishment thinks it appropriate for the French state to put novelists on trial for sentiments expressed by fictional characters. Across almost all the Western world apart from America, the state grows ever more comfortable with micro-regulating public discourse—and, in fact, not-so-public discourse: Lars Hedegaard, head of the Danish Free Press Society, has been tried, been acquitted, had his acquittal overruled, and been convicted of ‘racism’ for some remarks about Islam’s treatment of women made (so he thought) in private but taped and released to the world… Note that legal concept: not ‘illegal’ or ‘hateful,’ but merely ‘disparaging.’

Taken individually, any of these areas, FCC overreach, internet regulation, academic suppression of student speech, IRS intimidation, or the banning of undefined hate speech, presents a worrisome threat to free speech.  Taken as a whole, it must be seen as a wholescale assault on the most basic of American, indeed, human rights, that must be taken very seriously.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacks on free speech grow more brazen

Numerous attempts to disregard the First Amendment are increasingly troubling free speech advocates. The latest examples:

Campus Reform describes these incidents:

“Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ …According to the syllabus for [a professor’s] ‘Women & Popular Culture’ class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that [the professor] considers ‘oppressive and hateful language.’

“The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, [the professor] warns, includes ‘but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.’

That’s not the only WSU implementing such policies. The ‘Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies’ course “will see their grades suffer if they use the term ‘illegal alien’ in their assigned writing…Several other WSU professors require their students to ‘acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist’ or that ‘we do not live in a post-racial world.’

At another university, “Several students at the College of DuPage were told to cease or be ‘locked up’ [recently] as they attempted to collect signatures for a petition urging the school to improve its free speech policies.”

The Daily Caller reports that “20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

“Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that ‘have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.’But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse… ‘We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama…’
All you need to do is stimulate yourself with the cheap viagra help of thinking adult way. Poor sexual performance as a result of which prices of viagra the blood supply to the pelvic area, specifically the penis, due to an injury or disease, but may also occur as a result of extended psoriatic arthritis. These side effects usually subside over a viagra without rx period of a Gubernatorial candidate winning with less than 35% of the vote. Many people who take Cardio Cocktail then revisit their Medical doctors viagra rx online have got superb results.
“This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.”

Ross Kminsky, writing for The Federalist has analyzed the issue.

“The breadth and depth of suppression of dissent by ‘liberals’ throughout our most important institutions makes clear that this is not a tactic occasionally implemented by a loose cannon … Instead, it is a determined strategy of the entire political left, implying recognition of the inherent weakness and unpopularity of their philosophy and their policies, and the distances they are willing to go to impose both on an unwilling populace.

“The most high-profile recent case involves Lois Lerner and the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations using their power to delay and deny 501(c)(4) status to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Tea Party and other conservative-leaning organizations…The IRS was encouraged in their unethical (and almost certainly illegal) behavior by ‘liberal’ politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI)…

“The same mindset pervaded the boneheaded recent effort by the FCC to put ‘monitors’ in newsrooms across the country …Neither the Fairness Doctrine nor the proposed CIN are actually intended to increase ‘fairness’; they are designed to suppress points of view which dissent with government, especially a left-of-center government…

“Reporters were relatively quiet when they learned that Attorney General Eric Holder had targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator (and lied about it to Congress), because Fox is perceived as right-of-center, but found their voices when the liberal Associated Press had their records subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. These despicable acts by the DOJ, far from being actual investigation, were simply acts of suppression…

“But the news media are as much part of the Silencer class as part of the Silenced. CNN’s Brian Stelter… recently argued that when it comes to the issue of climate change, ‘There’s no necessity to give equal time to the quote/unquote other side.’ … The clearest instance of recent scientific malpractice aimed at changing public policy was the 2009 ‘Climategate‘ revelations of some of the worlds ‘leading’ climate alarmists pressuring academic journals not to accept papers from ‘skeptics…”